Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey - Development and Proposed Variants

Scott Kenny said:
While Osprey ASW is theoretically do-able, it probably wouldn't be using a dipping sonar. Ospreys are not particularly efficient or good in the hover, and using dipping sonar means lots of time spent hovering. If someone was stubborn enough about it, SV-22s using dipping sonar would absolutely be possible. Enlarge the access hole in the belly for sling loads so that the dipping sonar can pass through that spot.
Click to expand...
At this point I'm actually more curious about whether the V75/Bell 280 platform would work better as an ASW or AEW platform. It's quite a bit smaller, so that's a concern, especially for AEW, but it looks much better in the hover.

On the other hand, the S-3 didn't have a dipping sonar, so leave that to the helo's and focus on the outer defense rings.
 
Training_Dummy said:
Re ASW -22…Purpose built UAV, sized to house just the dipping sonar and other minimums, seems like a better solution.
Click to expand...
That wouldn't be very small. Dipping sonars are very heavy (or at least their tether and winch are). We're probably talking something bigger than an MQ-8C.



Training_Dummy said:
Re RCAF just keep it as is. Folding is good for maximizing heated hanger space in cold conditions. Keeps with CONOPS, maintenance, procedures and logistics of other V-22 operators.
Click to expand...
Valid point.

But you know Treasury is all about trying to stretch a penny until it's wire.



apparition13 said:
At this point I'm actually more curious about whether the V75/Bell 280 platform would work better as an ASW or AEW platform. It's quite a bit smaller, so that's a concern, especially for AEW, but it looks much better in the hover.

On the other hand, the S-3 didn't have a dipping sonar, so leave that to the helo's and focus on the outer defense rings.
Click to expand...
I doubt the V-75 is good for dipping ASW or AEW. Tilt-rotors aren't great in the hover in general, and the cabin isn't pressurized for AEW work.

Honestly, if you can make a lightweight AEW set to hang off a STOL drone like the GA Mojave or Reaper STOL you'd have it made for baby-carrier AEW.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I doubt the V-75 is good for dipping ASW or AEW. Tilt-rotors aren't great in the hover in general, and the cabin isn't pressurized for AEW work.

Honestly, if you can make a lightweight AEW set to hang off a STOL drone like the GA Mojave or Reaper STOL you'd have it made for baby-carrier AEW.
Click to expand...
V-75 isn't compromised in terms of rotor diameter like the V-22 is, and it met the Army's requirements as an H-60 follow on, so I suspect it's much better in the hover than the V-22 is.
 
I am comfortable saying that the USN is very unlikely to use MV or CMV-22 as a primary ASW aircraft. As shown though, the ability to support ASW by thickening the sonar net is a very real potential mission. To the question of the MV-75, it has the challenges as V-22 in that tilt rotors are not efficient hovering platforms.
 
With a total weight of 1.7 tons for the gearing, an electrical system for synchronisation and speed reduction might have been a been a better alternative. It would have also eliminated the tilting of the turbines.
 
I have long thought of this for 'eyes in the sky' work:-

en.wikipedia.org

Vought XF5U - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Possibly even the same mission as the S-3. It would need to be more concept than copy though. I doubt there is any room in that fuselage for much 'kit'.
 
Foo Fighter said:
I have long thought of this for 'eyes in the sky' work:-

en.wikipedia.org

Vought XF5U - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Possibly even the same mission as the S-3. It would need to be more concept than copy though. I doubt there is any room in that fuselage for much 'kit'.
Click to expand...
You could enlarge that design a good bit, up to "using a pair of T56s or the Osprey engines" and have plenty of capacity.

Though personally I'd reduce it a little, run on a pair of T700s (Apache/Blackhawk/Huey/Cobra engines) and a set of 90deg gear drives to split the engine power around. Oh, and it's a UAV, not manned.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You could enlarge that design a good bit, up to "using a pair of T56s or the Osprey engines" and have plenty of capacity.

Though personally I'd reduce it a little, run on a pair of T700s (Apache/Blackhawk/Huey/Cobra engines) and a set of 90deg gear drives to split the engine power around. Oh, and it's a UAV, not manned.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Good datalink and all ships get to see the same data, always good for a CIC to have the best situational awareness available.
 
Foo Fighter said:
Agreed. Good datalink and all ships get to see the same data, always good for a CIC to have the best situational awareness available.
Click to expand...
Ideally I'd give every single ship an AEW UAV or two, but that may have to wait a generation for (lots) more hangar space. Otherwise, you're needing a ship that is like the Hyuga-class to haul all the airframes. 2-3x AEW UAVs, at least 4x ASW UAVs, plus a couple of manned helos for the other jobs.
 
A manned VTOL AEW/EW capability on the lines of the old SCAT might not be out of the question either.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Ideally I'd give every single ship an AEW UAV or two, but that may have to wait a generation for (lots) more hangar space. Otherwise, you're needing a ship that is like the Hyuga-class to haul all the airframes. 2-3x AEW UAVs, at least 4x ASW UAVs, plus a couple of manned helos for the other jobs.
Click to expand...
Hyuga can carry up to 18 SH-60 sized helicopters in a combat configuration. It usually deploys with significantly less. Which means you can pretty much double those numbers.
 
apparition13 said:
Hyuga can carry up to 18 SH-60 sized helicopters in a combat configuration. It usually deploys with significantly less. Which means you can pretty much double those numbers.
Click to expand...
That list was for the non-Hyugas, actually. I'm expecting next-generation warships to each have a monster sized hangar with enough space for ~8x Seahawk-sized helos. Those ASW UAVs are going to be pretty big, the dipping sonar is heavy. So I'm assuming something roughly MQ-8C/Jetranger sized, but shaped more like the -Bs. And I assumed that the AEW UAVs are Seahawk-sized, though I'd prefer if they could be Jetranger-sized.

If all the UAVs are Jetranger-sized I think we could call the "normal ship" hangar size ~6x Seahawks, though what the ship carries is only 2x Seahawks and ~6x UAVs.
 
Just a thought, a V-22C update where the existing wing/engine nacelles assembly is replaced by one incorporating tech developed on the V280 (since this assembly is separate from the fuselage, this is feasible0. Without the tilting nacelles, you'd have a better chance of using AEW radar in hover.

If you wanted to do an SV-22B, best bet would be to incorporate a production version of the improved inlet that Bell trialed, it performed much better for prolonged hover in a salt air environment.
 
@elmayerle - While you could develop a new wing that does not require the engine nacelle to tilt with the rotor, care would have to be taken as the mounting point for the wing is further aft than on the V-280. The wing is angled forward to keep the thrust in line with the center of gravity of the V-22. I am sure that there would be torsional and flutter considerations that would have to be taken into consideration as well.
 
Why would you care about using an AEW radar in the hover anyway? That's like 5 minutes (or less) out of the plane's whole multi-hour mission time, and you probably don't want to be radiating immediately in any case. Best to put some offset between you and the carrier before going active.
 
TomS said:
Why would you care about using an AEW radar in the hover anyway? That's like 5 minutes (or less) out of the plane's whole multi-hour mission time, and you probably don't want to be radiating immediately in any case. Best to put some offset between you and the carrier before going active.
Click to expand...
The USMC looks at the MV-22 as a turboprop aircraft that can land and take off vertically. I am told that they do not fly around in Vertical mode or in any of the transitory stages of nacelle angle any longer than is necessary. I'm sure fuel consumption is significant in VTOL mode as well.
 
yasotay said:
The USMC looks at the MV-22 as a turboprop aircraft that can land and take off vertically. I am told that they do not fly around in Vertical mode or in any of the transitory stages of nacelle angle any longer than is necessary. I'm sure fuel consumption is significant in VTOL mode as well.
Click to expand...

The HMX-1 guys do seem to fly around partially transitioned, at least when they go over my house. But they don't have very far to go from the Pentagon or Boling to Quantico.
 
yasotay said:
I suspect that is a noise abatement protocol. V-22 is quite loud in VTOL mode.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that would make sense. They're low and slow enough to be in the helicopter routes rather than trying to deal with the commercial traffic. And they definitely have a distinctive sound even partially converted.
 
yasotay said:
@elmayerle - While you could develop a new wing that does not require the engine nacelle to tilt with the rotor, care would have to be taken as the mounting point for the wing is further aft than on the V-280. The wing is angled forward to keep the thrust in line with the center of gravity of the V-22. I am sure that there would be torsional and flutter considerations that would have to be taken into consideration as well.
Click to expand...
Mounting ring wouldn't need to be relocated. The existing V-22 wing has a touch of forward sweep and the new wing's design could be adjusted to work with the existing location.
 
Regarding an ASW version of the V-22, I could see the rear ramp replaced by sonobuoy launchers and means for trailing a MAD sensor behind the aircraft (much as VARS trails a refueling drogue). A dipping sonar dropped through the hatch in the underside might be feasible, but for hovering for that you'd definitely want the improved inlet Bell demonstrated on the ATTR testbed as flight tests showed it gave much better protection against performance egradation due to salt water spray.
 
elmayerle said:
Regarding an ASW version of the V-22, I could see the rear ramp replaced by sonobuoy launchers and means for trailing a MAD sensor behind the aircraft (much as VARS trails a refueling drogue). A dipping sonar dropped through the hatch in the underside might be feasible, but for hovering for that you'd definitely want the improved inlet Bell demonstrated on the ATTR testbed as flight tests showed it gave much better protection against performance egradation due to salt water spray.
Click to expand...

I suspect the SV-22 would have deployed buoys using a launcher firing out the bottom of the aircraft. Easier to get them located precisely that way, in the pre-GPS era.

None of the art associated with SV-22 has shown a streamed MAD. I think a retractable boom as in the S-3 would have been preferred in that speed regime. But also possibly not required. The Seahawk F didn't bother (for that matter, it didn't do buoys either).
 
TomS said:
I suspect the SV-22 would have deployed buoys using a launcher firing out the bottom of the aircraft. Easier to get them located precisely that way, in the pre-GPS era.

None of the art associated with SV-22 has shown a streamed MAD. I think a retractable boom as in the S-3 would have been preferred in that speed regime. But also possibly not required. The Seahawk F didn't bother (for that matter, it didn't do buoys either).
Click to expand...
Agree that sonar buoy would be the most likely course of action for an SV-22. You can't make a helicopter that has the range and speed of a tilt rotor, and you can't make a tilt rotor with the full hover efficiency of a helicopter (although I do acknowledge that technology has a habit of putting paid "can't" arguments). Still an S-3 Viking'esque that could operate off of many more USN ships would be of value. Recently the USMC demonstrated dropping sonar buoy out of MV-22 in an exercise.
 
yasotay said:
Agree that sonar buoy would be the most likely course of action for an SV-22.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. Most of the images we do have of the SV-22 do show it in the hover with a dipping sonar deployed. That was definitely the preferred solution since it has much more power and specificity than standard buoys, from the 1980s at least. A dipper could acquire, classify, and monitor an engagement all in one system, which is why the narrative in one ad talks about listening to the torpedo run in and hit the target. Buoys of the era were not up to that.
 
TomS said:
None of the art associated with SV-22 has shown a streamed MAD. I think a retractable boom as in the S-3 would have been preferred in that speed regime. But also possibly not required. The Seahawk F didn't bother (for that matter, it didn't do buoys either).
Click to expand...
ISTR that the Seahawk F fires sonobuoys from the side opposite where the MAD "boom" is carried. I was suggesting using the MAD "bomb" simply because it's available kit already in the logistics pipeline. Sonobuoys from the bottom hatch would be possible, but I ws thinking my approach would allow more in a short tim periof if necessary.
 
elmayerle said:
ISTR that the Seahawk F fires sonobuoys from the side opposite where the MAD "boom" is carried. I was suggesting using the MAD "bomb" simply because it's available kit already in the logistics pipeline. Sonobuoys from the bottom hatch would be possible, but I ws thinking my approach would allow more in a short tim periof if necessary.
Click to expand...

I had never known that the F carried any buoys, but apparently it does. Not the large dispenser like the B but a small 6-tube launcher somewhere in the cabin. But it doesn't have MAD at all. It has a third pylon, usually used for a fuel tank, where the MAD would be. Sonobuoys aren't something you deploy a lot of all at once, you want to lay them at fairly precise intervals, usually in a line or chevron across the formation's line of advance. So precision counts more than volume. Or at least it used to -- with GPS in the buoys now, getting the lines straight is less critical, which is why they can get away with chucking them out the back hatch of an MV-22 by hand now, as they have done in some fleet experiments.

If a dedicated SV-22 hadd been made, it would not have been an improvisation and they could have done things right. A retractable MAD boom wouldn't have been a hard thing. We'd been doing them for ages; S-2 and S-3 both had them, after all. And a rotary dispenser in the cabin firing down through the floor, would have been better than using the ramp. It would have to have a separate opening, though, as the existing floor hatch would have been used for the dipping sonar.
 
TomS said:
If a dedicated SV-22 hadd been made, it would not have been an improvisation and they could have done things right. A retractable MAD boom wouldn't have been a hard thing. We'd been doing them for ages; S-2 and S-3 both had them, after all. And a rotary dispenser in the cabin firing down through the floor, would have been better than using the ramp. It would have to have a separate opening, though, as the existing floor hatch would have been used for the dipping sonar.
Click to expand...
If developing today, I'd suspect someone would be using the door launcher units from the AC-130Js. While those do completely replace the paratrooper door, the SV-22 still has the rear ramp to work with. Or you fake the install aft of the wing if you have to have the door working as well as the rear ramp.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If developing today, I'd suspect someone would be using the door launcher units from the AC-130Js. While those do completely replace the paratrooper door, the SV-22 still has the rear ramp to work with. Or you fake the install aft of the wing if you have to have the door working as well as the rear ramp.
Click to expand...

L3 Harris make a line of modular dispensers designed for sonobuoys, which are slightly smaller than the CLT. This is where I'd be shopping for the necessary bits.
 

Attachments

  • l3harris-next-generation-sonobuoy-launch-system-sas.pdf
    822.3 KB · Views: 17
Scott Kenny said:
If developing today, I'd suspect someone would be using the door launcher units from the AC-130Js. While those do completely replace the paratrooper door, the SV-22 still has the rear ramp to work with. Or you fake the install aft of the wing if you have to have the door working as well as the rear ramp.
Click to expand...
You wouldn't want do launchers on a V-22 as the door is in front of the proprotor and you could damage it. That's one reason I sugessted a replacement for the rear ramp. You could carry torpedoes aft of the proprotors because they drop down, not accelerte forward.
 
elmayerle said:
You wouldn't want do launchers on a V-22 as the door is in front of the proprotor and you could damage it. That's one reason I sugessted a replacement for the rear ramp. You could carry torpedoes aft of the proprotors because they drop down, not accelerte forward.
Click to expand...
The launchers I'm talking about fire straight down, not sideways out the door.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom